Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences

Coastal Erosion and Coastal Integrity Vulnerability at selected Shorelines of Sarawak, Borneo Malaysia

Fabian Döweler

Department of Aquatic Resources Master´s thesis • 30 hec • Second cycle, A2E

Uppsala 2015

1

Coastal Erosion and Coastal Integrity Vulnerability at selected Shorelines of Sarawak, Borneo Malaysia Fabian Döweler

Supervisor:

Assistant Supervisor:

Examiner:

Local supervision:

Dr. Andreas Bryhn, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic ResourcesProf. Andreas Fangmeier, University of Hohenheim,Department of Landscape and Plant EcologyProf. Anna Gårdmark, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic ResourcesDr. Aazani Mujahid, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Department of Resource Science and Technology

Credits: 30 hec Level: Second cycle, A2E Course title: Independent Project in Environmental Science - Master's thesis Course code: EX0431 Programme/education: NM025 EnvEuro - European Master in Environmental Science

Place of publication: Uppsala Year of publication: 2015 Online publication: http://stud.epsilon.slu.se

Keywords: Coastal Integrity Vulnerability Assessment Tool, Shoreline Tracing, Beach Profiling, Climate Change

Adaptation, Beach erosion, Integrated Coastal Management, Sarawak, Turtle nesting, Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle,

Olive Ridley Turtle, Leatherback turtle, Talang-Satang

Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences Department of Aquatic Resources

2

Table of content Table of content ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Explanations ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Popular summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction and objectives .................................................................................................................... 5

Research site ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Shoreline erosion in Sarawak .............................................................................................................. 9

Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................................... 11

CIVAT ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Beach profiling ................................................................................................................................... 13

Shoreline tracing ............................................................................................................................... 15

Digital Processing .............................................................................................................................. 15

Surveys .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Interview............................................................................................................................................ 22

Results ................................................................................................................................................... 23

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Technical considerations ................................................................................................................... 32

Possible causes of erosion ................................................................................................................. 34

Results Landsat Imagery and GIS ...................................................................................................... 36

Possible CIVAT Alternative ................................................................................................................ 36

Mitigation options ............................................................................................................................. 38

Ecosystem services at the investigated beaches ............................................................................... 40

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 42

Publication bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 43

Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................ 47

CIVAT rescaling Guide........................................................................................................................ 47

Interview............................................................................................................................................ 48

3

Abstract

This study assessed the coastal vulnerability and erodibility of 11 beaches around the Kuching Division-

Sarawak state, Borneo Malaysia. The main aim of the study is to judge the feasibility of combined

approaches to determine the vulnerability of sampling sites and evaluate further on the crucial erosion

events in the study area. The vulnerability assessment comprises the use of the Coastal Integrity

Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CIVAT) as a semi-quantitative benchmark in order to compare between

single and multiply study sites further supplemented by beach profiling, shoreline tracing with

consecutive image analysis in ArcGIS and historical literature research. In addition, an interview with

adjunct professor Chou Loke Ming from Singapore was added to evaluate the findings of the study and

put it into a more regional context. The results have revealed a massive depletion of sand resources

on 4 of the 11 focus areas (Siar Beach, Pandan Beach, Talang Beach and Satang Beach). Erosion rates

range between 3.37 % to 15.17 % of beach area per year. While all of the beaches show trends of

declining sand resources the CIVAT reveals, besides Permai 1st Beach which achieved a high rating, low

to medium vulnerability ratings for all the study sites subject to this study. The feasibility of the

“assessment tool” is further discussed and questioned as well as possible reasons for the shoreline

recession revealed. Above that, the importance of ecosystem features like the Talang-Satang area as

a designated breeding site for endangered turtle species in Sarawak is underscored. The valuation of

unique ecosystem services constitutes a key component to initiate conservation action in the areas of

focus.

Explanations

Most likelihood classification (MLC) Digital image procession within ArcGIS which

allows to designate a set of training samples in

order to classify areas from aerial images

Hedonic pricing Approach with attempts to estimate the

economic value of ecosystem by trying to relate

them to economically quantified reference

values e.g. (real estate prices)

Ordinary least squares (OLS) Simple mathematic approach attempting to fit a

function by minimizing the sum of squared

errors

Width and length of beach Beach width is defined as the distance between

the shoreline and the start of the beach. The

beach length refers to its total shoreline

distance

4

Popular summary

This study assesses the current status of beach ecosystems in the Kuching-Sarawak district Borneo,

Malaysia. For the focus area information about the condition of the coastline is very limited. Therefore the

aim of the study is to produce a basis fundament for introducing long term monitoring to the sites. Within

the scope of the study is to assess the present characteristics of 11 local beaches, estimate the ongoing

erosion process, rate their vulnerability to different environmental impacts and give future

recommendations of how to proceed with the beaches in order to ensure sustainability.

For this purpose a so called “Coastal Integrity Vulnerability Assessment” in combination with a beach

profiling and shoreline tracing has been conducted. The approach covers slope measurements of the beach

by average determination and standardized questionnaires rating the impact of different environmental

impacts on a scale from 1 to 5. The surveys include factors like sand deposition/erosion on the beaches, the

adjacent vegetation, anthropogenic activities and developments, coastal communities and susceptibility to

tidal changes and local phenomenon like monsoon and typhoon events. As a result of the environmental

inventory a rating can be given, judging the overall vulnerability of the site, hence the urgency for human

action to preserve it. Above that the area of the beach is assessed by combining Landsat satellite images

provided by Google Maps and on site tracked GPS data via mobile GPS device. The so gathered data was

used in ArcGIS software to compare it to historic images to assess the development of the beach over time.

The assessment revealed that the outcome of the vulnerability rating differs among the sampled beaches,

giving a high vulnerability rating for Permai 1st Beach, a medium rating for Siar Beach and Pandan Beach

and a low rating for the remaining sites. However, while the outcome is expected to give clear priority

setting for conservation action it becomes evident that the questionnaire does not give credit to single

parameters to a sufficient amount. The results of the area calculations have revealed that all of the sampled

sites are subject to erosion: 4 of the beaches under focus (Siar, Pandan, Talang and Satang) are threatened

to such an extent (3.37 – 15.17 %/year) by the depletion of sand resources, that their sheer existence is

endangered in a foreseeable future. However, the outcome of the conducted vulnerability rating gives only

low and medium ratings to the concerning sites. Therefore it is important that the design of the vulnerability

assessment method is changed to take into account drastic developments more explicitly.

For future management strategies of the focus areas it is advisable to design an integrated coastal

management package. The approach has to consider special characteristics of the given sites. The Talang-

Satang NP for instance provides nesting sites for endangered turtle species like the Hawksbill turtle. A

consecutive economical valuation of these features could give additional support for conservation

measurements for the beaches. It is important to raise public awareness in the area and underscore

importance features which makes the beaches unique. Ultimately a dedicated and site adjusted approach

could connote a key procedure preserving these coastal ecosystems.

5

Introduction and objectives

According to recent scenarios predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th

assessment report it is most likely that weather patterns will be altered globally in the face of climate

change. Basically the frequency and magnitude of monsoon and drought events will tend to increase,

resulting in a more unstable and unpredictable climate (IPCC 2014). Besides IPCC global climate model

predictions, these tendencies have been verified by real world data (Hansen et al. 2012). This ongoing

progress enhances the susceptibility of ecosystems to these external, multi-scaled stressors increasing

the rate of exposure and ultimately the vulnerability of the system itself. Particularly vulnerable are

coastal communities located in low degrees of latitude, which are subject to sea level rise and extreme

globally dimensioned weather events (e.g. monsoon and drought periods) at the same time.

About 23% of the world’s population live within 100 km of the coast and below 100 m above sea level

(Small & Nicholls 2003). In the case of Malaysia, this applies for 98% of the total population

(UNEP/COBSEA 2010), making it especially sensitive to the above mentioned factors. The Malaysian

government has declared to counteract the adverse effects of climate change in its recent

development plan (10th Malaysian Plan 2011).

The impact and the extent of such progresses can be described by ecological assessments. These

surveys account for the current status of ecosystems by conducting a “natural inventory” as well as

underscoring site specific features and processes. The outcome of such an approach describes the

vulnerability of the ecosystem to site specific external stressors. If monitored regularly the collected

data allows future predictions for the status of the site. The outcome of such an approach

Fig. 1: Scope of the study, location of Kuching-Sarawak area (basemap taken from Google Earth 2015)

6

In the research area of this study (Fig. 1), the surrounding of the city Kuching in the state of Sarawak,

the coastal areas are primarily populated by small coastal communities. These communities mainly

consist of fishermen, small business holders and workers for the development industry (Fig. 2).

The whole coastline, with exception of the Santubong Peninsular near Permai Beach, is not influenced

by tourism. Residents rely strongly on the output of the wood logging, oil palm, agriculture and fishing

industry, which is their main source of income.

Fig. 2: Small business settlements in Lundu

However, according to the locals, fish population appears to decline and the surrounding environment

is increasingly monetized by e.g. the wood or palm oil industry. Often disregarded in this aspect is the

situation at the beaches. Their contribution to the integrity of local ecosystems is often underrated

and they did not appear to be an object of prior focus since the tourist industry in the study area is

holding off.

Increased exposure of the study site to climate change related effects become more evident. Due to

the special geography of the Kuching-Sarawak area, the coastlines are exposed to a big range in tidal

magnitude: The local sea level oscillates between magnitudes of 3 to 4 m (Sarawak Marine Department

(SMD) 2015)

Above that, the sporadic inundation of the coastal areas found its peak in the beginning of 2015. The

Sarawak massive flood event forced 3,201 people to evacuate their homes and many major highways

had to be closed (The Star 2015). The present development unveils that the region strongly demands

well-elaborated monitoring approach to measure the impacts of the adverse effects of climate change

(The Borneo Post 2014).

7

This study uses the Coastal Integrity Vulnerability Assessment Tool as a semi-quantitative scientific

benchmark in order to reveal sensitivity, adaptive capacity and exposure parameters of coastal beach

environments and compare multiple study sites. Consecutively the advantages and disadvantages of

the approach will be evaluated.

In addition, the study aims for estimating the shoreline erosion at poorly investigated sites, giving

further evidence to ongoing erosion claims in the area.

The data collected for this approach comprises shoreline GPS tracing, beach slope profiling, on-site

status report within the use of CIVAT, tidal records, digital imagery (Landsat, Google Earth), literature

research as well as communication with locals. Further evidence to ongoing erosion claims are

assessed using an interview with an expert in coastal integrity

Research site

Sarawak state together with the state Sabah form the Borneo-part of Malaysia. Sarawak state is

located between 0° 50’ and 5°N latitude and 109° 36’ and 115° 40’E longitude. The whole state of

Sarawak extends over an area of 124,449.51 m² and features three different topographic areas: The

coastal lowlands with its river deltas and peat swamp resources, the mountainous inland which goes

up to 2500 m and the hilly transformation zone, connecting the other two focus areas.

The research site of this study (Fig. 3) focused around beaches and coasts of Kuching Division and its

surrounding area. Most parts of the population in the studied sites concentrate in the capital Kuching,

major areas of the coastline besides the villages of Lundu and Sematan remain widely sparsely

populated. The yearly temperature averages around 27°C (Sarawak Government 2015)

Fig. 3: Kuching-Sarawak area provides the scope for the study (basemap taken from Google Earth 2015)

8

Turtle protection programs have a long history in Malaysia and especially in Sarawak. First designated

hatching sites were introduced to Sarawak in the early 1950’s. The Kuching Division of Sarawak

provides breeding spots for Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle and Leatherback turtles

(Tab. 1). However, populations of these show a steady decline. Reasons are commercial hunting, egg

exploitation, decline in fish population and the recession of nesting habitats (Chan 2006). Special

protected breeding sites have been assigned in Tanjung Datu National Park, Talang-Satang National

Park (introduced 1999) and near Pandan Beach (Fig. 4). The beaches chosen for assessment of

vulnerability are crucial for population growth of the above mentioned species. Of particular

importance is the Talang-Satang National Park which has been introduced with its primary aim of

conservation of Sarawak’s marine turtle population. It is estimated, that 95% of Sarawak’s turtle

landings take place in the 4 islands of the Talan-Satang National Park (Sarawak Forestry Corporation

2014). It has been reported that during the period between April and September 2011 over 3,000

marine turtles had landed and layed around 200,000 eggs in the National Park area (The Borneo Post

2012).

Sarawak has been the first state in Malaysia to update conservation measurements under the Wildlife

Protection Ordinance 1998, which prohibits the exploitation and trade of marine turtles, eggs and their

derivative parts (Bali et al. 2002). However, another main threat to the turtle populations constitutes

the loss in breeding habitats. Marine turtles show an extremely high affinity for their nesting sites and

their status is threatened by ongoing erosion events in the research site.

Maintaining these sites and furthermore expanding potential sanctuaries needs to be assured in order

to encounter the ongoing decline in turtle populations.

Tab. 1: Status of Sarawak’s turtle populations (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, WWF Malaysia)

Scientific Name IUCN Red List WWF Malaysia

Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered Significant decrease in

Sarawak since 1970

Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Critically endangered Limited info

Olive Ridley

Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Not listed Declined by more than 95%

Leatherback

Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Vulnerable Declined by more than 99%

9

Fig. 4: Turtle nesting site on Talang Beach (left); green turtle breeding at Pandan Beach (right)

Shoreline erosion in Sarawak

The research area of Kuching division Sarawak experiences ongoing erosion events on its shorelines. This

development has been supported by reports of the Malaysian government (Government of Malaysia

Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) 2009). The process can have several causes and available data

for the research site is limited. However, since movement of sand resources on beach systems is a dynamic

phenomenon, the Input and Output has to be observed. New deposition of sand mainly comes from inland

deposition or from sediment transport from the adjacent river systems. The latter has been consequently

influenced by the adverse effects of non-sustainable sand mining in the nearby rivers and channels of the

focus area (Fig. 5). Throughout the uncontrolled scooping of rivers the system can be damaged on several

trophic levels (Padmalal et al. 2008). On a long-run the disturbance in the organism composition of the river

system will raise its susceptibility to external stressors.

Fig. 5: Sand dredging activity in a river system near Tanjung Datu

10

Relevant for this study is that a speeding up of the sand transport within the river system ultimately affects

the sand deposition on adjacent beaches. Since this approach constitutes a pioneer assessment there is no

available data to what extent sediment transportation from the adjacent rivers to the beaches subject to

this study takes place. However, aerial pictures of the area underscore the importance of sediment

transportation of river systems. The Input of peat-draining river sediments into the ocean can be seen by

the distinct brownish coloring in close proximity of the estuary. To a certain extent the turbidity can be

detected all over the area of research (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Sediment Output of a river near Lundu (top) affects the turbidity in the study area (bottom)

Additionally it is to question to what extent sand mining close to the relevant sampling sites has

affected the rate of erosion until now. Information on where and to what extent sand has been

dredged offshore in the Kuching district Sarawak is not available. However, it can be assumed, that

due to the dimension of Singapore’s land extension and the proximity and huge sand dredging

potential of the study area, relevant offshore dredging activities have been taken place at least until

11

the ban of sand exports by the Malaysian government in 2007 (The New York Times 2007; Sarawak

Government 2014). Above that, it is to question if extraction of sand resources is still ongoing. Reports

on sand trade from both countries for United Nations’ Comtrade database differ significantly, showing

an amount of 130 million tons of undeclared sand imports from Malaysia in 2008 (Dredging Today

2010).

Vulnerability

The IPCC defines the vulnerability term in their Fourth Assessment Report (2007) as followed:

“Vulnerability to climate change is the degree to which geophysical, biological and socio-economic

systems are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse impacts of climate change“.

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007)

The definition has been influenced fundamentally by Füssel and Klein (2006) and is widely and

homogenously accepted among scientists. However, the complexity of the vulnerability term reveals

difficulties to make it quantifiable.

Vulnerability is a dynamic phenomenon, comprising lots of multi-dimensional factors, each

interconnected and acting on different scales: Resilience, susceptibility, exposure, sensitivity, adaptive

capacity to mention only some of the complex characteristics of the term (Alwang et al. 2001). The

attempt to translate it into a quantitative metric often sets apart from what an ecosystem actually

represents. Scientific approaches end up converting it to biophysical or socio-economic indicators in

order to give them a quantifiable value which in term attempts to deliver a clear statement to decision-

makers to act. But a convenient approach to “invoice of natural productivity” does not do justice to

the complex term of vulnerability, moreover it abstracts it away from its intricacy and causal

implications (Alwang et al. 2001).

Ultimately the vulnerability term with its different components of exposure and potential impact aims

to determine specific parameters interacting on multiple levels and scales. To judge the alteration of

vulnerability by external stressors like the adverse effects of climate change, the observation has to be

progressive and long-term, since events can be continuous and discrete, showing the various facets of

this global and dynamic process (Romieu et al. 2010).

The CIVAT approach is used in this study aims for facilitating environmentally driven decisions by the

local administration answering the issues stated above.

12

CIVAT

As indicated above, governments of developing countries show an increased sensitivity to climate

change related issues, since decision on environmental sites often results in a dispute between

accessing the necessity of action and a lack of institutional capacity to realize them (Adger 2006).

Altering effects of climate change to ecosystems are not easy to assess, since possible impacts are

strongly dependent on an almost infinitely diverse actors and multiple stressors working on different

scales (Adger 2006). Climate change addresses local phenomena like monsoon and droughts, but also

long term effects like a change in temperature and a rise in sea level. The impacts itself can be local

and severe, but are mostly slow paced and not recognizable if only watched over a small timespan.

The response of local ecosystems exposed to climate change relevant factors is dependent on its

susceptibility. The overall resilience is determined by interaction of coastal communities, vegetation

cover, tidal movement, sand composition etc. For this reason, when taking mitigation steps, they have

to be designed for a specific site, addressing local characteristics and implying the adaptive capacity of

the system it got introduced to.

There are a lot of different approaches dealing with this issue and the variety of options to assess often

confuses policy makers rather than giving them a clear guidance (Adger 2006). However, the majority

of these assessments monitor shifts in regime composition for terrestrial, freshwater and marine

systems to a sufficient amount, mostly neglecting the beaches.

Monitoring attempts which are dedicated to these sites often suffer under data limitation, low spatial

resolution especially in rural areas. Above that simplistic assumptions of feedback and interlinkage of

community effects decreases the efficiency to turn them into trustful decision supporting tools (Hinkel

& Klein 2009).

In order to give clear guidance on these coastal environments it is inevitable to introduce long-term

monitoring programs, assessing and quantifying core sets of parameters (Defeo et al. 2009). If properly

funded and carefully conducted these approaches deliver powerful instruments, considering tons of

environmental interactions, dependencies and scenarios. Basically, when addressing climate change

related issues, reproducibility, long-term assessments and practicality in even low developed and rural

areas is key. However, it has to be acknowledged, that most approaches account for multiple stress

factors to a vulnerable systems, neglecting that these accounted stresses influence themselves among

each other (Ribot 1995).

The Coastal Integrity Vulnerability Assessment tool (CIVAT) steps aside from overambitious attempts

and focuses on the essentials. Through its simplicity it provides a tool which can be used by almost

everyone and can be applied to a wide range of different coastal environments. Studies have shown

13

that metrics which provide broad and easy application are considered being the most effective in this

field (Luers et al. 2003) and therefore its convenience is a core strength of the approach. Nevertheless

the CIVAT approach only becomes a powerful tool in assessing vulnerability of an ecosystem by

supplying it with sufficient and consecutive data. If used properly it provides policy-makers guidance

on which sites decisions need to be made.

Due to the lack of long-term monitoring data, the work presented here states a pioneering vulnerability

assessment, focusing on providing a basis for consecutive research and indicating urgent hotspots for

mitigation activities. Subsequent research might also include the involvement of social scientist and

economists, producing a better understanding of complex, climate-sensitive systems and prioritizing

target formulation of governments (Füssel & Klein 2006). With ongoing enhancements these

approaches might even be capable to provide further economical legitimization by calculating financial

loss scenarios (Flax et al. 2002).

Methodology

Beach profiling

To measure the profile of the beach CIVAT calls for a simplistic approach (Emery Method) that

guarantees the ability to reproduce the data all over the world with little knowledge and low costs.

The tools which are needed are an accurate GPS device (e.g. handheld Garmin), three one meter long

metal poles with a measure tape attached (= ranging pole), an at least 30 m long measure tape, a

camera, a notebook, a pencil and information about the tide level.

To conduct the survey there are at least 2 persons needed: Starting point is a permanent structure like

a building or a fence at the beginning of the beach to assure reproducibility in the future. GPS

coordinates of the starting point are noted down and the measure tape is rolled out straight to the

shoreline. Information about the tide level, weather conditions, type of permanent structure and the

daytime are written down in the notebook. The measurement takes place ±1 h of lowest tide level

event.

Person A (Fig. 7) moves along the measure tape and places the ranging pole straight up at a set distance

X. Person B places the ranging pole at the starting point and aligns their sightline of the horizon with

the top of the ranging pole Person A is holding The difference in elevation ∆z can be read out at the

14

ranging pole by Person B and is noted down. Afterwards both persons walk down the set distance X

along the measure tape and the step is repeated until the end of the beach is reached. If the slope

rises, Person B uses a second ranging pole stacked on top of the other one. ∆z is now noted down as a

negative value. Noticeable changes of the beach profile, like a change of sand particle size, the

presence of rock formations and river beds are noted down as well.

Note: Distance between the ranging poles and repetition of the method needs to be adjusted to the

timeframe available and the length of the beach. For example: If the beach is comparably small and

the slope is mostly even it calls for less repetition of the approach and the distance between the

ranging poles are relatively low to increase the accuracy of the output. If the distance between the

poles is low, the measurement is very time consuming and therefore it impedes the attempt to cover

the full distance of the beach as well as it limits the amount of time available for subsequent surveys

like the shoreline tracing.

Fig. 7: Beach profiling at Tanjung Datu

In the end the information about the length of the beach and the difference in elevation can be put

together in the data analysis in Excel to calculate the overall slope of the beach. Data can be used to

compare the susceptibility to erosion of the different beaches.

15

Shoreline tracing

The shoreline tracing method of the CIVAT is used to assess the full area of a beach by noting down

GPS data of the shoreline area. At low tide level (± 1h) a person walks from the beginning of the beach

along the shoreline to the end of it and consecutively notes down the GPS data at least every 50 steps

(Fig. 8).

Fig. 8: Shoreline tracing at Tanjung Datu

Digital Processing

The gathered data can be digitalized in Excel and is converted into a *.kml file by KMLCSV converter

(earthpoint.us) to be used in Google Earth and ArcGIS later. Using Google Earth, the correct location

of the coordinates can be re-verified for the consequent use in ArcGIS. Screenshots from the sampling

sites are taken from Google Earth and georeferenced into ArcGIS. The Geographic Coordinate System

WGS 1984 has been used for the Data Frame Layer. For georeferencing at least 4 discrete locations

(black-white dots) have been placed manually on the screenshot by creating placemarks in Google

Earth. The geographic info of all the relevant points have been stored in a separate table.

The available Landsat imagery is used to calculate the overall area of the beach. Using distinct objects

like vegetation and development sites to frame the borders of the beach and by linking it to set

locations of the shoreline trace, a shapefile can be created (Fig. 9).

16

Fig. 9: Creating a shapefile in ArcGIS (left); overlay with basemap (right)

In order to calculate the possible recession of the area, historical Landsat images from Google Earth

are used as an overlay and new shapefiles have been created, following the former shoreline of the

Beach (Fig. 10). Afterwards the Geographic Coordinate System (WGS 1984) is changed into a Projected

Coordinate System (WGS 1984 World Mercator) to enable area calculations of the created shapefiles.

The calculation can then be conducted by activating the Geometry calculations in the attribute Table

of the files.

Fig. 10: Overlay of shapefiles from recent and historic Landsat imagery

17

Tracking information about the date and time of the available images is strongly recommended to

back-calculate the low tide events. Unfortunately the daytime data could not be retrieved. Therefore

it was made sure that the consequently used images do not show spring tide events to reduce the

impact on the exposure of beach area. Above that the low variability in low tide events is further

discussed later on.

Basically the approach used here takes the available imagery that shows a more exposed beach with a

larger area. This way it could be assured if there is ongoing erosion taking place on the site.

Note: The spatial resolution of the available Landsat data is relatively low and a most likelihood

classification (MLC) cannot be conducted in ArcGIS.

Surveys

The following tables (Tab. 2 – 6) are from the Guidebook for “Vulnerability Assessment Tools for

Coastal Ecosystems” (MERF 2013).They illustrate different parameters which have to be accessed to

conduct a CIVAT. Each parameter is given a ranking, summed up it shows the overall impact of that set

of parameters for the vulnerability calculation.

The sensitivity analysis (Tab. 2) comprises a set of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The intrinsic parameters

under research focus on the conditions of the beach itself. Hereby it is important to investigate if the beach

shows long time developments of accumulating or depleting sand resources. The slope is a decisive factor

for the susceptibility to physical stressors like waves and tidal changes. Basically a greater slope means

greater resilience to such factors. In addition, a wide and continuous reef flat and a dense coverage by

vegetation or coastal communities such as corals, mangroves and seagrasses contributes to the resilience

as well. The extrinsic factors take into account anthropogenic activities like the building development on

the foreshore with its concrete structures and piers and offshore alteration such as the removal of sand,

corals and pebbles. The presence of these actions increase the overall sensitivity of the given site.

The Adaptive Capacity (Tab. 3) determines the actual capability of the system to be subject to adaptation

measurements. Hereby it is more important to take a look of the overall development of the site and if prior

protection guidelines have been introduced to it. A beach showing long term eroding effects and a lack in

continuity of sediment supply has lower adaptive capacity, since it is difficult and expensive to counteract

these developments. Above that, if the site in question does not hold any construction restrictions,

designated setback zones for recovery and shows high commercial interest, steps for contributing to its

integrity are impeded additionally.

18

The exposure variables analysis (Tab. 4) summarizes the exposure to physical external stressors in the tidal

range and wave exposure. Ultimately a big threshold in the tidal range and a relatively great sea level rise

increase the exposure of the site. This effect can be dampened by the presence of offshore structures like

islands and the beach itself facing away from the ocean to limit exposure to monsoon events.

The results are used to calculate a rating for the given parameters using the CIVAT rescaling Guide (see

Appendix). Afterwards the output is summarized by calculating the potential impact (Tab. 5), which

reconciles the results of the exposure and sensitivity analysis. The final rating given by the CIVAT shows the

overall vulnerability of the site (Tab. 6) and is a result of the potential impact reconciled with the adaptive

capacity. This rating combines the above mentioned parameters and translates it into a low, medium or

high ranking; judging the structural integrity of the site.

19

Tab. 2: Sensitivity analysis (MERF 2013, p. 83 Tab. 13)

Sensitivity Low Medium High

(1 - 2) (3 - 4) (5)

Seasonal beach recovery

Net Accretion Stable Net Erosion

Slope from the shoreline to 20-m

elevation (landward slope)

greater than 1:50 1:50 – 1:200 less than 1:200

Width of reef flat or shore platform (m)

Greater than 100 (50 - 100) Less than 50

Beach forest/vegetation

Continuous and thick with many creeping

variety

Continuous and thin with few creeping

variety Very patchy to none

Lateral continuity of reef flat or shore

platform greater than 50 % (10 – 50) less than 10 %

Coastal habitats

Coral reef, mangroves and seagrasses or

coral reef and mangroves are

present

Either coral reef or mangrove is present

None

Coastal and offshore

mining (includes removal of fossilized corals on the fringing

reef and beach

None to negligible amount of sediments being removes (i.e., sand and pebbles as

souvenir items)

Consumption for household use

Commercial scale

Structures on the foreshore

None; one or two short groins (i.e. < 5 m

long) and/or few properties on the easement with no apparent shoreline

modification

Short groins & short solid-based pier (5 to 10 m long); seawalls and properties with aggregate length of

less than 10 % of the shoreline length of

the barangay

Groins and solid-based pier > 10 m long; seawalls and

other properties with aggregate length of

more than 10% of the shoreline length of

the barangay

Extr

insi

c fa

cto

rs

Intr

insi

c fa

cto

rs

20

Tab. 3: Adaptive Capacity analysis (MERF 2013, p. 86 Tab. 15)

Adaptive Capacity

Low Medium High

(1 - 2) (3 - 4) (5)

Long-term shoreline trends

(m/year) < -1 (eroding) -1 and 0 > 0 (accreting)

Continuity of sediment supply

If interruption in sediment supply is

regional

If interruption in sediment supply is localized

If sediment supply is uninterrupted

Guidelines regarding the

easement (setback zone)

No provision for easement (setback zone) in the CLUP and zoning

guidelines

Setback policy is clearly stated in the CLUP and zoning guidelines; with <50% implementation

Implementation of setback policy is at least 50%

Guidelines on coastal structures

CLUP and zoning guidelines promotes the

construction of permanent and solid-

based structures along the coast

Clearly states the preference for semi-

permanent or temporary structures to be built along

the coast (e.g., made of light materials and on stilts) is in

the CLUP and zoning guidelines

Prohibits construction of solid-based structures; For

those already erected, CLUP/zoning guidelines has

provision to remove or modify any structure causing

obstruction and coastal modification

Type of coastal development

Industrial, commercial, highways, large

institutional facility Residential

Agricultural, open space, greenbelt

21

Tab. 4: Exposure analysis (MERF 2013, p. 79 Tab. 12)

Exposure variables

Low Medium High

(1 - 2) (3 - 4) (5)

Rates of relative sea level change (RSLC;

cm/year) < 0.2 0.2 – 1.5 > 1.5

Wave exposure during monsoons*

Facing away from ocean

Intermediate effect Facing ocean body

Wave exposure during typhoons* (coming from

east)

Islands mitigating the impact of typhoon

Intermediate effect No islands in front, directly

facing typhoon

Tidal range < 1 1.0 to 2.0 > 2

*after consultation with the local supervisor these parameters have been adapted to fit the sampling site

Tab. 5: Potential Impact calculation (MERF 2013, p. 88 Tab. 14)

Potential Impact

Sensitivity

Exp

osu

re

L M H

L L L M

M L M H

H M H H

22

Tab. 6: Overall Vulnerability calculation (MERF 2013, p. 90 Tab. 15)

Vulnerability Adaptive Capacity

Po

ten

tial

Imp

act

L M H

L M L L

M H M L

H H H M

Interview

Prior assessments of the research area have revealed a depletion of sand resources in the area

between Tanjung Datu and mount Santubong (Malaysian Government Department of Irrigation and

Drainage (DID) 2009). However, the reasons remain wildly unknown and literature about the sites in

question is limited. Adjunct research professor Chou Loke Ming is a leading expert in the field of marine

ecosystem integrity in the South East Asian seas. He has published several reports and held various

speeches of how the integrity of coastal system is endangered in the face of climate change,

anthropogenic pressure and erosion (L. M. Chou (ACSEE) 2014).

Results of this talk should help to reveal possible causes for erosion and give recommendations about

adaptation options as well as putting the findings into a more societal and regional context (full

interview see Appendix).

23

Results

The results shown below are a summary of the main findings on the sites. The picture in the top left is

a self-taken shot of the actual field site, the date can be found above. The bottom left picture visualizes

the location of the beach marked with a star ( ).

The top right picture shows the most recent available image of the sampling site, with the date

displayed left from it. The results of the on-site sampling can be seen here. The red flag ( ) shows the

GPS location of the starting point for the beach profiling. The results of the beach profiling are

displayed in the very bottom left of the figure. The camera ( ) indicates the point where the

photography from the top left has been taken. The teal marking ( ) shows the result of the shoreline

tracing, each sampling point is noted down. The results of the shoreline tracing should not be confused

with the actual image presented here. It is just the reference image for the calculations of the region

landwards. The total, GIS calculated area of the beach, can be seen left from the picture. The picture

in the bottom right is the available comparison image. It shows a Landsat image where a tidal event

has exposed more beach area than in the low tide event during the sampling. The date of the picture

and the calculated area are illustrated left from the picture. The results of the CIVAT have been

displayed in the center of each figure. Low values of the three main indicators (sensitivity, adaptive

capacity, exposure) are indicated in green, medium values in yellow and high values respectively in

red. The overall Vulnerability factor can be seen in the very bottom right of the figure.

24

Fig. 11: Results Tanjung Datu 1st Beach

Fig. 12: Results Tanjung Datu 2nd Beach

25

Fig. 13: Results Tanjung Datu 3rd Beach

Fig. 14: Results Talang Beach

26

Fig. 15: Results Sematan Beach

Fig. 16: Results Pandan Beach

27

Fig. 17: Results Siar Beach

Fig. 18: Results Satang Beach

28

Fig. 19: Results Pasir Panjang Beach

Fig. 20: Results Permai 1st Beach

29

Fig. 21: Results Permai 2nd Beach

The results of all of the 11 beaches under investigation (Fig. 11 – 21) show between minor up to

massive erosion events over the last years. For three of the mentioned sites (Tanjung Datu 2nd Beach,

Sematan and Pasir Panjang) there was no imagery Landsat data available. This is due to distortion or

cloud cover. Above that, the muddy sediment at Pasir Panjang made it impossible to trace the shoreline

to the very end. However, detection of net erosion of sand resources in the Kuching Division-Sarawak

has been reported by the Malaysian Government Department for Irrigation and Drainage (Malaysian

Government Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) 2009). Therefore this finding is incorporated

in the shoreline trend of the CIVAT. The sampling conditions were the same everywhere: sunny and

calm. The number of samples for the beach profiling have been adapted to the structure of the beach

and the available timeframe.

The results of the CIVAT give a medium vulnerability ranking to two sites (Pandan Beach and Siar

Beach) and a high ranking for Permai 1st beach. The remaining 8 beaches show a low vulnerability

rating. The sensitivity rating is medium for Permai 1st beach, Pandan Beach and Siar Beach, for the

remaining ones there is only a low sensitivity given.

30

The adaptive capacity gives for all the beaches besides Permai 1st at least a medium rating, only the

aforementioned one shows a low level of possible adaptation impacts.

The exposure rating shows a medium result for all the sampling sites under research.

Fig. 22: Annual erosion by area in m² per year (CIVAT rating indicated by the respective bar color)

Fig. 23: Annual erosion by area in % of total beach catchment per year (CIVAT rating indicated by the respective bar color)

While comparing the annual erosion by area per year (Fig. 22) it becomes quite evident that at least 4

of the beaches (Siar Beach, Pandan Beach, Talang Beach and Satang Beach) show massive depletion of

13

172

214

355

3223

4425

9128

14777

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Permai 2nd Beach

Tanjung Datu 1st Beach

Permai 1st Beach

Tanjung Datu 3rd Beach

Satang Beach

Talang Beach

Pandan Beach

Siar Beach

Annual erosion by area [m² / year]

0,30

1,45

1,56

1,66

3,37

4,70

12,28

15,17

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00

Tanjung Datu 1st Beach

Permai 2nd Beach

Permai 1st Beach

Tanjung Datu 3rd Beach

Siar Beach

Pandan Beach

Satang Beach

Talang Beach

Annual erosion by area [% / year]

31

sand resources over the last years. The annually decrease of beach area of Siar beach actually

translates into the area of 2 soccer fields (~2.07) disappearing each year.

When putting the same data in a different view and having a look at the percentage of disappearing

beach in relation to its overall area (Fig. 23) a different ranking can be seen. It is still the same four

beaches underscored from the previous figure which show a crucial development. But in relation to its

overall size, Talang Beach (15.17 %) and Satang Beach (12.28 %) show an annually decline which

endangers their existence in the coming years.

The interview has underscored ongoing developments in the Kuching Division Sarawak and revealed

possible conservation approaches for the future. Therefore it is important to implement a holistic,

integrated coastal management approach. A package considering the vulnerability assessment like

CIVAT enhanced by economical quantification measures to make the issue apparent and negotiable

for associated policy makers.

Developments in this area are fundamentally driven by the economic interest of the logging and palm

oil industry. If the valuation of the beaches is not presented by analytical assessments, no profound

conservation action will take place. Consequent mitigation options would only be maintained by

introducing long-term monitoring of the sites and in-depth revision of the UN Adaptation Fund system

to assure to the point financing. Above that the approach should feature a policy harmonization

between federal and marine government to make such issues legally addressable on water and land

likewise. In case that the issue will be ongoing and neglected by local governments, ecosystem services

will disappear and remain unrecoverable for the future.

The results until now only give a hint of possible causes of the massive erosion events. Nevertheless

the interview supports the claim that the integrity of the beach systems under research is substantially

influenced by sand dredging activities within the river systems, the alteration of inland vegetation by

the logging and palm oil industry as well as former offshore activities in the area by the state of

Singapore. To what extent this development takes place, if it constitutes a recent or an over decades

ongoing event can only be determined if long-term monitoring in the area takes place.

32

Discussion

Technical considerations

The results of the study have revealed massive depletion of sand resources of at least some of the

focus areas. However, basically the results should be analyzed carefully before judging the overall

susceptibility of the site.

First and probably most important, the historical Landsat imagery available on Google Earth provides

only a rough reference to what extent the erosion takes place. The timespan between the reference

pictures varies greatly due to limited availability and quality/resolution of the aerial imagery. It was a

common issue that a lot of pictures in these mostly less developed areas lack these kind of

characteristics. The reference picture of Permai 2nd Beach (Fig. 21; bottom right) for instance showed

a slight lateral distortion while putting it into the WGS 1984 reference system in ArcGIS. Further re-

adjustments of the image overlay decrease the accuracy of the approach. Above that, the Pasir Panjang

site showed very muddy characteristics making it impossible to trace the shoreline by foot. The data

gathered here cannot be used for consecutive studies, showing a demand for an alternative technique.

Additionally it is to question if the historical reference imagery actually shows low tide events. If this is

not the case, the erosion of the beach could be even more evident than stated in the results. Actual

daytime data of the comparison site could not be retrieved and an approach to estimate the daytime

by judging the shading of trees and buildings had to be neglected due to low image resolution. Above

that, the presence of the new moon event has an impact on the tidal range as well (Hammons 1993).

Therefore, to increase the overall accuracy of the approach, on site sampling has been conducted at

least two full days apart from full/new moon events. In addition the low variability of low tides over

the years should be considered (Fig. 24) as well as the expected level in sea level rise in the coming

years (Ercan et al. 2013). Despite the fact that the variation in low tides in the graph (Fig 24.) appears

to be relatively high, only a few actual data points come into consideration. For example, when taking

the latest available low tide tables from 2014 and excluding spring tides (± 2 days) as well as low tides

events during the night, the overall standard deviation is relatively low: 1.68 m ± 0.24 m for the

respective sampling period between April and July (Director of Marine Sarawak 2014).

The data is consequently used to verify the claim of erosion in the focus areas by weakening other

factors which could have possibly influenced the exposure of beach surface on the satellite images.

33

Fig. 24: Mean low and high tides from March 2011 to May 2012 in Sematan. Reproduced with permission. (Ng Chiew-Tyiin 2012)

Where the shoreline tracing showed great accuracy of the mobile tracking device and reproducibility

by application into different software, the beach profiling revealed clear weaknesses. For beaches

which show a broad width and an even slope as characteristics like the Tanjung Datu Beaches (Fig. 11

- 13), Sematan Beach (Fig. 15) and comparable sites the approach is absolutely accurate and gives a

clear idea of the susceptibility to waves and tidal variability in the studied sites. However, when it

comes to beach profiles which show an uneven gradient like Talang Beach (Fig. 14) and Satang Beach

(Fig. 18; top right) the approach does not properly reflect the given characteristics of the site. For

instance the latter shows after 51 m a slope of -0.79 %, but the remaining 9 m show an increase in

slope to -9.65 %. Displaying the overall slope with –1.20 % does not represent an accurate indicator to

judge the susceptibility of the site. Above that, due to the very uneven shoreline course it is to question

if additional profiling attempts of the beaches would increase the accuracy of the tool. This also affects

the comparability between beaches, which can only be made if both samples show a very even slope.

When projecting the current development of the sites in the face of erosion and relate it to the CIVAT

vulnerability rating; the approach, in the present state does not indicate higher than medium need for

action in the most crucially eroding sites: Siar Beach, Pandan Beach, Talang Beach and Satang Beach.

Furthermore, future monitoring approaches would most probably not raise the rating on these sites.

The CIVAT approach used in this study gives a broad set of parameters applicable for the sites, but

does not allow the necessary step here to prioritize certain factors by giving them additional weighting.

34

The erosion factor (= shoreline trend) is just 1 of 5 parameters in the adaptive capacity rating (Tab. 2),

which itself is just 1 of 3 parameters adding up to the actual vulnerability rating (Tab. 3). The approach

lacks the opportunity to prioritize certain factors in order to point out key developments for the focus

areas. For instance, a slight amplification of a single indicator can already have a big impact: As

mentioned in the introduction, the Kuching Division due to its coastal geography is subject to large

oscillation of low and high tide events (Sarawak Marine Department (SMD) 2015). Due to that fact the

tidal range in the exposure rating (Tab. 4) receives 5 points and is 1 of a total set of 4 parameters all

the exposure ratings have been raised to an at least medium scaled rating in that regard.

Possible causes of erosion

The results have shown that the ongoing beach erosion is the major concern of the study sites. This

development has to be questioned and possible causes need to be faced as soon as possible. Besides

the river dredging activities, which have been mentioned earlier, the integrity of coastal beach systems

is further threatened by the intensive alteration of the Inland of the Kuching division Sarawak. Due to

a boom of the logging and consecutively oil palm industry in the 1970’s (Fig. 26) the area has

experienced a decrease in tropical rainforest which is without comparison even when put in a

worldwide perspective: Over the last decades Sarawak has lost over 90% of its primary tropical

rainforest (The Economist 2012). The forest stand, especially the mangrove vegetation in Sarawak, is

a crucial factor for sustaining the integrity of local beach ecosystems by protecting them from erosion

(Bennett & Reynolds 1993). It is important to acknowledge this factor has influenced the coastal

integrity, but to measure the actual impact is beyond the scope of this study.

Fig. 26: Oil palm plantation in Sarawak

35

Additionally it is to question to what extent sand mining close to the relevant sampling sites has

affected the rate of erosion until now. As mentioned earlier, available data here is limited. Former off-

shore sand mining activities could have caused permanent disruption in the stability of the sites sand

resources. Basically the common response of a beach system to off-shore mining is forming a

dissipative profile in order to cope with the enhancement of the horizontal penetration of waves. As a

result the overall surface and slope will be flattened and lowered (Nordstrom 2000). Sematan Beach,

Siar Beach, Pasir Panjang Beach and Permai 1st Beach showed a remarkable resemblance of this type

of response. This trend could be supported by statements of local inhabitants. Nevertheless, it is

recommended to conduct further research on the mentioned sites to gather a better understanding

of the development which causes the flattened profile of the beach. Deep off-shore intervention of

sediment transport is followed by a hysteresis effect which is a strong characteristic response of coastal

beach systems. The initial erosion period is thus followed by a persistence consecutive loss of sand

resources of the studied beaches, accumulating in the low-tide platform (Borges et al. 2002).

The reaction mentioned above is the direct effect altering the profile of a beach. The indirect effect is

more difficult to estimate. It constitutes an interrelation between the change in offshore depth

affecting the size and movement of waves and ultimately changing the sediment transport to the

beach. Hereby the depth of the dredged hole thus has a bigger influence than its cross-shore length

and its impact is virtually independent to its longshore width. Therefore a recommended approach is,

if offshore dredging cannot be avoided, to scoop at the deepest spot in the ocean to minimize impacts

on local shoreline deposition (Hüseyin 2004).

In the future this development has to be addressed throughout a policy harmonization as suggested

in the interview. Only by making land and sea issues legally tangible at the same time the impact of

dredging activities can be restricted.

Above that, the sea level rise, which comes along with progressing climate change could show a

reinforcing effect on the beaches response to form a dissipative profile: Malaysia’s geographic location

and climate makes it subject to greater sea level rises than predicted in the worldwide average

scenarios (NAHRIM, 2010). However, in national comparison the expected sea level rise of the study

site remains relatively low. Until 2040 the Kuching-Sarawak area shows a rise in sea level of 0.161 m

and until 2100 it adds up to 0.592 m (Ercan et al. 2013). The response of a sandy beach ecosystem to

this development is a recession of local mangrove resources as well as an adaptation of the beach

profile itself. The so called bruun rule describes the effect: The face of the beach is building up vertically

but retreats landwards in order to maintain an equilibrium in profile (Harvey & Woodroffe 2008). This

could have been a further development increasing the physical response of the beach in order to cope

with the altered hydraulic patterns afflicting the sandy ecosystem.

36

Results Landsat Imagery and GIS

The results have shown, that a combination of recent and historical Landsat images from Google Earth

and subsequent use of GIS to determine the surface area of the beach, constitute a powerful tool to

assess the overall beach erosion. This has been proven by prior studies and could here be verified

(Anfuso et al. 2009).

The overall expenditures are relatively low and the data procession can be made far off from the site.

The gathered data facilitates easy reproducibility and it provides a starting point for long-term

monitoring. For future projection of the development of the surface area additional data collection is

indispensable. The collected data can be updated periodically and gives consideration for describing a

dynamic process. Hereby it would be of great interest to investigate the evolution of the beach before

and after monsoon events or great storms.

Possible CIVAT Alternative

Besides the mentioned limits for the CIVAT approach, literature about vulnerability assessments and

in general theoretical knowledge about coastal ecosystems and its valuation options is expanding

greatly (Brander et al. 2012). On the other side, experience in applying these assessments in

development countries and moreover rural areas is very limited (Schwarz et al. 2011). The practicality

in these areas can only be improved by expanding the scope of application for these kind of

approaches.

Besides it is to question if there is an actual best solution: One which incorporates a chosen set of

parameters and weighting of each; considering enough details to cope with local diversity while being

general enough to allow broad scaled application. The progress of developing such a powerful tool is

still in its infancy. State of the art research provides a long list of well-elaborated approaches, but lacks

the actual homogeneity it needs for linking and comparing sites.

The coastal vulnerability index (CVI) is one of these alternative approaches which finds broad

application today and has been fundamentally influenced by Gornitz in the early 90’s, by trying to find

a way to create a vulnerability database for coastal ecosystems (Gornitz et al. 1994). Basically the CVI

is calculated as the square root of the product of the ranked variables divided by the total number of

variables. The variables and their distinct ranking process can be entirely different from study to study

and therefore can show high dedication to certain ecosystems and their comparability among each

other (Boruff et al. 2005; McLaughlin & Cooper 2010).

37

This attempt has been further re-shaped and enhanced consecutively by many to project it to different

coastal environments (e.g. Vittal Hegde et al. 2007). Above that, the weighting process has been re-

evaluated and more recent approaches consider sub-indices which dedicate to the socio-economic

framework where the adaptation measurement are being introduced to (McLaughlin & Cooper 2010).

The latter is a decisive factor to assess the feasibility of the whole approach. If the results of the

assessment provides clear recommendation e.g. prioritization of certain sites, but it cannot be

sufficiently translated into legal action, the whole project loses its relevance. Basically the socio-

economic circumstances of the area is the key fundament where action should be adjusted to.

However, also for this factor it is critically discussed to give explicit values. Socio-economic systems are

sensitive to changes in global economics or policies (McLaughlin et al. 2002). This dynamic component

impedes the process of making it accessible for such an assessment. This occurrence is to some extent

comparable to the effect climate change has on the assessed vulnerability parameters given by the

CIVAT approach. The impacts can be calculated to a certain extent by assuming different scenarios, but

the future dynamics of the system cannot be completely understood by present approaches.

The way CIVAT and CVI work is very akin, they are just likely to take into account different parameters

and indices and weight them differently. It is important to acknowledge that the flexibility of the CVI

tool impedes its function to create global comparability of beach ecosystem. At a certain degree, a

coastal assessment becomes simply too site specific. Further re-evaluation of the approaches and

testing their robustness by sensitivity analysis can provide more evidence, but is not within the scope

of this study. However, in order to make the tool more powerful it should be considered if the inclusion

of non-environmental related factors makes sense here.

As underscored in the interview, developments of the study site are mainly driven by the economic

interest of big industries. Therefore is important to recognize the socio-economic component as a part

of the assessment, improving its overall applicability. Mechanics would tackle more efficient here if

the approach is not considered an analytical tool as a stand-alone. An integrated coastal management

approach should on the one hand consider all the environmental aspects but on the other hand also

take into account that these steps call for a proper translation into local conditions. At the end of the

day it is about introducing a different way to access resources and development issues by governments

as well as individuals (Luers 2005).

38

Mitigation options

Taking a view to a more global perspective it has to be acknowledged that the issue itself is additionally

branded by a worldwide development, going along with a more and more industrialized and globalized

world: There is a so called double inequity between responsibility/capability between first world and

development countries (Füssel 2010). This means that Malaysia’s rural populations are in the position

that due to their proximity to the equator area they suffer the most of the adverse effects of climate

change even though they are not responsible for its causes. The country itself has increased its

sensitivity and exposure level to these changes by altering natural habitats due to extensive fishing,

logging and palm oil industry activities. Based on this initial position the effects which go along with

climate change are more subtle, hard to grasp and leaves locals with a feeling of powerlessness behind

(Grothmann & Patt 2005). Having this general development considered, a holistic approach (Gornitz

et al. 1994; Hennecke et al. 2004) has to provide a powerful tool in empowering the locals. Basically

the whole step is to enable a consistent translation of robust and measurable indices of resilience and

vulnerability into well-adjusted adaptation measurements for local sites. However, as already

underscored by Adger, there is a missing link of turning the outcome of the research into legal practice

(Adger 2006). For that matter one has to acknowledge that managing such rural and less developed

areas requires different approaches than for tourist areas, where such action could simply be funded

by taxation of hotels and recreational activities.

During the work on the focus areas, interviews with people in Lundu and Sematan have shown, that

the locals are well aware of their declining ecosystem services. However, they feel incapable of taking

action and see themselves as powerless minorities (Grothmann & Patt 2005). This draws a link to

comparable situations worldwide, despite the fact that native tribes enjoy a lot of rights and respect

in most development countries.

The above mentioned development can be counteracted: Studies have shown that by gaining a better

understanding of community-level governance and creating social cohesion down to the individual

scale, the collective action might enhance the perception of people being able to cope with change.

(Schwarz et al. 2011). This social consensus has to be created and maintained, especially when it comes

to managing rural areas.

It is to question which measurements would be most advisable to the sites, especially the ones

suffering from large erosion events (Siar Beach, Pandan Beach, Talang Beach and Satang Beach).

Basically the objective should be handled with care, since it is most likely that certain responses like

the erosion of the sites might be a result of a certain stressor which has been the case on a comparable

39

site. However, a link between an external stressor and a certain response is not applicable globally

since the effect alters with space and time (Tol & Yohe 2007). Therefore the following

recommendations should be revised thoroughly before introduced to the area.

One possible option to tackle the progressing erosion is to shift the processes down drift by introducing

hard structures to the area. However, it is questionable to what extent such an encroachment

constitutes an adverse effect to the ecosystems virtually unaffected by anthropogenic activity until

now (e.g. Tanjung Datu). Above that and even more a concern, to what extent the introduction of hard

structures can actually alter the sand movement mainly characterized by the sand input from adjacent

riverine and upland systems and the aftermath of former offshore dredging activities. Ultimately the

implementation of hard structures affects regional species diversity. It alters hydraulic patterns, affects

the sediment deposition and grain size and contributes to habitat heterogeneity (Airoldi et al. 2005).

Before such an approach is operated the possible impacts on short and long term susceptibility of the

site should be investigated.

Another approach would constitute the refilling of sand resources from local supplies. However, results

of related studies question the long-term effect of beach nourishment for mitigating the adverse

effects of climate change (Gopalakrishnan et al. 2011). In general this approach is not sustainable and

will constrain the budget available for treating these sites. In the case of virtually untouched sites

(Tanjung Datu) a different approach might be more viable:

A sustainable conservation approach should be introduced to the studied sites in order to protect the

coastal flora and fauna without deep human interferences of the sites. A transitional solution, as

suggested in the interview, could be the designation of the sites as marine reserves (MRs) and marine

protected areas (MPAs). This method has not been common practice until now for sandy beach

ecosystems. The idea behind that method is that part areas could be converted into special protection

zones excluding anthropogenic activities. Basically this would provide refugium for coastal organisms

threatened by the increasing commercialization of the area by the logging and oil palm industry. The

approach would maintain integrity of the ecosystems and its efficacy could be traced easily since these

ecosystems mainly consist of short-lived invertebrates (Defeo et al. 2009).

Therefore first of all low cost approaches have to be developed highly adapted to the sites to dampen

the effects of erosion. The introduction of hard structures constitutes a feasible measurement for

areas which are not designated National Park areas like the offshore islands and Tanjung Datu. They

are cheap and easy to realize with local manpower under a community level government project. For

the Tanjung Datu area the comparatively erosion is small, nevertheless monitoring should be

continued to observe seasonal effects as well as impacts of global phenomena of El Niño to inland

vegetation and anomalous monsoon events (Slik 2004; Chongyin 1990). For the special protected areas

40

within the Talang-Satang NP it is recommended to introduce approaches highly dedicated to the sites.

The special importance as a turtle breeding area needs to be underscored, mitigation measurements

should not impair the species high affinity for nesting sites. Therefore it is recommended to conduct

further steps carefully and assess behavior patterns of the turtle species.

Basically it is to question how to fund more advanced mitigation techniques and future assessments

in the focus area. One viable option in this case is to ask the UN adaptation fund board. The special

status of the Talang-Satang NP as a turtle breeding site for even critically endangered species like the

Hawksbill turtle legitimizes this option. The state of Malaysia as being one of the 192 countries who

ratified the Kyoto Protocol and therefore is eligible to ask for funding for climate change adaptation

projects. Above that as a development country which is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects

of climate change it inherits a priority status. In order to apply for funding, a proper management plan

has to be presented, comprising a project which is within the technical and economical feasibilities of

the country. The plan has to be endorsed by the designated government authority (UN Adaptation

Fund Board (AFB) 2014).

However, despite the fact the adaptation fund board is constantly reviewing its prioritization pattern

it still struggles with translating it to the subnational level (Persson & Remling 2014). That in term

means that there is a lack of a control instance on national scale. In order to assure a sufficient funding

process it has to be traced by an UN subordinated entity that the money the government receives for

such a project is spend completely in this regard. Due to the fact that this control mechanisms is not

completely given yet, the effectiveness of such a step considering the administrative barriers given,

has to be evaluated.

Despite that, fundamental action by the Malaysian government will only take place if the economic

interest in the conservation of the focus areas of this study is given. Therefore, in order to legitimize

adaptation measures, an economical quantification of beach characteristics is recommended.

Ecosystem services at the investigated beaches

Recent studies have shown that the economic value of the beach resource has been underestimated

for a long time. Hedonic pricing calculations with the OLS method have shown, that the actual beach

width correlates way more to its economic value than previously assumed (Gopalakrishnan et al. 2011).

This results could give new input into a justification process for mitigation options. However, a

41

proposed development plan would still face the issue that the area is not of touristic interest. By having

a look of management proposal for such tourist areas partial ideas could be adapted.

Recent studies of coastal urbanized areas have underscored, that the correlation between shore-line

retreat and increase in remaining beach area value is significant. Certainly the decline in the coastal

property can be tackled by well adapted risk assessments in combination with a cost-benefit analysis

within the scope of a sustainable beach management plan. All funded by an increase in rental values

of the beach sites (Alexandrakis et al. 2015).

Admittedly and as already stated, the above mentioned approach cannot be applied to most of the

areas in question subject to this study. Though, the study points out the possibility of linking outcome-

based scenario calculations and economical quantification to the present ecosystems subject to this

study. Taking this into the consideration as a part of such an assessment the outcome can complement

and enhance decision making by local governments (Brooks et al. 2005).

If the valuation of the beach itself does not provide evidence to claim for mitigation steps, the

importance of certain ecosystems has to be underscored. Basically the problem here is to give

valuation to nature’s inventory and to account for local phenomena rather than providing a

standardized approach. However, ultimately approaches ends up being a benefit and loss calculation,

legitimizing conservation action in the area (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007). Of major importance in the

research area is the Talang-Satang NP: The provision of a habitat for endangered turtle species is a

unique key feature of the site. The outcome of the interview suggested to apply for funding from the

UN adaptation fund board or trying to declare the unique turtle nesting islands as UN World Heritage

Sites. However, considering the acuteness of the erosion process, further research suggested a

different approach:

Economical valuation of the beaches can be assessed by the calculation of annual willingness to pay

(WTP) for securing the reproduction habitat of turtles. The approach typically estimates the benefits

for local citizens (Loomis & White 1996), but the benefits can also apply for people in richer nations

(Mazaris et al. 2014). Putting an incentive payment for marine conservation on a global scale is not

common practice yet, but has proven to show remarkable success when applied in conservation of

turtle nesting sites with low annual expenditures (Ferraro & Gjertsen 2009).

42

Conclusions

Within the study the CIVAT has been tested and evaluated. The assessment in combination with the

shoreline tracing and beach profiling showed good practicability and can provide easy to reproduce

data at low costs. The results revealed extensive beach erosion especially in the Talang-Satang NP and

at Siar and Pandan Beach endangering nesting habitats for local sea turtle species. However, the CIVAT

approach as a stand-alone analytical tool did not flag the mentioned sites with a high priority status.

For further research it is suggested to re-evaluate the weighting process of the assessment and

consider the implementation of socio-economic parameters to account for site specific processes.

Further mitigation steps in the Kuching division Sarawak call for an integrated coastal management

approach including a policy harmonization by the government. Current issues can only be addressed

adequately by making anthropogenic activities in the focus area legally tangible on land and sea

likewise.

To facilitate action in the area it is suggested to underscore the unique characteristics of the Talang-

Satang NP as a breeding hotspot for endangered sea turtle species. Economic valuation can be

established by promoting incentive payments for the maintenance of the turtle habitat on a global

scale. This approach can create financial backup over the full period of long-term management plans.

The longevity of the measurement is an important factor. Only by carrying forward monitoring based

on the outcome of this pioneer study the full extent of ongoing processes like the acuteness of the

erosion can be determined with greater accuracy.

43

Publication bibliography 10th Malaysian Plan. Chapter 6: Building an Environment that Enhances Quality of Life. Economic Planning

Unit (2011), pp. 246–310.

Adger, W. Neil (2006): Vulnerability. In Global Environmental Change 16 (3), pp. 268–281. DOI:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.

Airoldi, L.; Abbiati, M.; Beck, M. W.; Hawkins, S. J.; Jonsson, P. R.; Martin, D. et al. (2005): An ecological

perspective on the deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures. In

Low Crested Structures and the Environment 52 (10–11), pp. 1073–1087. DOI:

10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.09.007.

Alexandrakis, G.; Manasakis, C.; Kampanis, N. A. (2015): Valuating the effects of beach erosion to tourism

revenue. A management perspective. In Ocean & Coastal Management 111, pp. 1–11. DOI:

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.001.

Alwang, J.; Siegel, P. B.; & Jorgensen, S. L. (2001): Vulnerability: a view from different disciplines. Social

Protection Discussion Paper Series. In No. 0115, World Bank. 42 pp.

Anfuso, G.; Martínez Del Pozo, José, A. (2009): Assessment of coastal vulnerability through the use of GIS

tools in South Sicily (Italy). In Environ Manage 43 (3), pp. 533–545. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9238-8.

Bali, J.; Liew, H. C.; Chan, E. H.; & Tisen, O. B. (2002): Long distance migration of green turtles from the

Sarawak Turtle Islands, Malaysia, pp. 32–33.

Bennett, E. L.; Reynolds, C. J. (1993): The value of a mangrove area in Sarawak. In Biodivers Conserv 2 (4),

pp. 359–375. DOI: 10.1007/BF00114040.

Borges, P.; Andrade, C. G.; Freitas, M. C. (2002): Dune, bluff and beach erosion due to exhaustive sand

mining – the case of Santa Barbara beach, São Miguel (Azores, Portugal. In Journal of Coastal Research 89-

95 (SI), pp. 89–95.

Boruff, B. J.; Emrich, C.; Cutter, S. L. (2005): Erosion Hazard Vulnerability of US Coastal Counties. In Journal

of Coastal Research 215, pp. 932–942. DOI: 10.2112/04-0172.1.

Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. (2007): What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental

accounting units. In Ecological Economics 63 (2-3), pp. 616–626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

Brander, L. M.; Wagtendonk, A. J.; Hussain, S. S.; McVittie, A.; Verburg, P. H.; de Groot, R. S.; van der

Ploeg, S. (2012): Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: A meta-analysis and value

transfer application. In Ecosystem Services 1 (1), pp. 62–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003.

Brooks, N.; Neil, A.; W.; Mick, K. P. (2005): The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the

national level and the implications for adaptation. In Global Environmental Change 15 (2), pp. 151–163.

DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006.

Chan, E. H. (2006): Marine turtles in Malaysia: On the verge of extinction? In Aquatic Ecosystem Health &

Management 9 (2), pp. 175–184. DOI: 10.1080/14634980600701559.

Chongyin, L. (1990): Interaction between anomalous winter monsoon in East Asia and El Nino events. In

Adv. Atmos. Sci. 7 (1), pp. 36–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF02919166.

Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D. S.; Schlacher, T. A.; Dugan, J.; Jones, A. et al. (2009): Threats to

sandy beach ecosystems. A review. In Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81 (1), pp. 1–12. DOI:

10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022.

Director of Marine Sarawak (2014): Tide Table Sematan. Jabatan Laut Wilayah Sarawak.

44

Dredging Today (2010): Malaysian Sand Issues. Available online at

http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/08/05/malaysian-sand-issues/, checked on 5/29/2015.

Ercan, A.; Bin Mohamad, M. F.; Kavvas, M. L. (2013): The impact of climate change on sea level rise at

Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah-Sarawak. In Hydrol. Process. 27 (3), pp. 367–377. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9232.

Ferraro, P. J.; Gjertsen, H. (2009): A Global Review of Incentive Payments for Sea Turtle Conservation. In

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 8 (1), pp. 48–56. DOI: 10.2744/CCB-0731.1.

Flax, L. K.; Jackson, R. W.; Stein, D. N. (2002): Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool Methodology. In

Nat. Hazards Rev. 3 (4), pp. 163–176. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2002)3:4(163).

Füssel, H. M. (2010): How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and

vulnerability to climate change: A comprehensive indicator-based assessment. In 20th Anniversary Special

Issue 20 (4), pp. 597–611. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.009.

Füssel, H. M.; Klein, R. J. T. (2006): Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments. An Evolution of Conceptual

Thinking. In Climatic Change 75 (3), pp. 301–329. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3.

Gopalakrishnan, S.; Smith, M. D.; Slott, J. M.; Murray, A. B. (2011): The value of disappearing beaches: A

hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width. In Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management 61 (3), pp. 297–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.09.003.

Gornitz, V. M.; Daniels, R. C.; White, T. W.; Birdwell, K. R. (1994): The Development of a Coastal Risk

Assessment Database: Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise in the U.S. Southeast. In Journal of Coastal Research,

pp. 327–338. DOI: 10.2307/25735608.

Grothmann, T.; Patt, A. (2005): Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual

adaptation to climate change. In Global Environmental Change 15 (3), pp. 199–213. DOI:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.

Hammons, T. J. (1993): Tidal power. In Proc. IEEE 81 (3), pp. 419–433. DOI: 10.1109/5.241486.

Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R. (2012): Perception of climate change. In Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (37), pp. E2415-23. DOI:

10.1073/pnas.1205276109.

Harvey, N.; Woodroffe, C. D. (2008): Australian approaches to coastal vulnerability assessment. In Sustain

Sci 3 (1), pp. 67–87. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-008-0041-5.

Hennecke, W. G.; Greve, C. A.; Cowell, P. J.; Thom, B. G. (2004): GIS-Based Coastal Behavior Modeling and

Simulation of Potential Land and Property Loss: Implications of Sea-Level Rise at Collaroy/Narrabeen

Beach, Sydney (Australia). In Coastal Management 32 (4), pp. 449–470. DOI:

10.1080/08920750490487485.

Hinkel, J.; Klein, R. J.T. (2009): Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: The

development of the DIVA tool. In Global Environmental Change 19 (3), pp. 384–395. DOI:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.03.002.

Hüseyin (2004): Impacts of Dredging on Shoreline Change - Google Scholar. Available online at

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=Impacts+of+Dredging+on+Shoreline+Change+&btnG=&lr=,

checked on 6/4/2015.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Ed.) (2007): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014): Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science

Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Leatherback Turtle. Available online

at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4615/0; http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8005/0;

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/6494/0, checked on 9/29/2015.

Loomis, J. B.; White, D. S. (1996): Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-

analysis. In Ecological Economics 18 (3), pp. 197–206. DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8.

Luers, A. L. (2005): The surface of vulnerability: An analytical framework for examining environmental

change. In Global Environmental Change 15 (3), pp. 214–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.003.

Luers, A. L.; Lobell, D. B.; Sklar, L. S.; Addams, C. L.; Matson, P. A. (2003): A method for quantifying

vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. In Global Environmental

Change 13 (4), pp. 255–267. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-3780(03)00054-2.

Malaysian Government Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) (Ed.) (2009): Volume 3 - Coastal

Management. Kuala Lumpur.

Mazaris, A. D.; Almpanidou, V.; Wallace, B. P.; Pantis, J. D.; Schofield, G. (2014): A global gap analysis of

sea turtle protection coverage. In Biological Conservation 173, pp. 17–23. DOI:

10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.005.

McLaughlin, S.; Cooper, J. A. (2010): A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: A tool for coastal managers?

In Environmental Hazards 9 (3), pp. 233–248. DOI: 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0052.

McLaughlin, S.; McKenna, J., and Cooper, J. A. (2002): Socio-economic data in coastal vulnerability indices:

constraints and opportunities. In Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 36, pp. 487–497. Available

online at http://www.jcronline.org/action/showPopup?citid=citart1&id=i1551-5036-28-6-1488-

McLaughlin1&doi=10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-11-00187.1, checked on 7/10/2015.

MERF (2013): Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems -A Guidebook. MERF. 2013.

Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems: A Guidebook. Marine Environment and Resources

Foundation, Inc.: Quezon City, Philippines, pp 162.

NAHRIM (2010): The study of the impact of climate change on sea level rise in Malaysia (Final Report),

National Hydraulic Research Institute Malaysia, pp 172.

Nordstrom, K. F. (2000): Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Padmalal, D.; Maya, K.; Sreebha, S.; Sreeja, R. (2008): Environmental effects of river sand mining: a case

from the river catchments of Vembanad lake, Southwest coast of India. In Environ Geol 54 (4), pp. 879–

889. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0870-z.

Persson, A.; Remling, E. (2014): Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: initial experiences of the

Adaptation Fund. In Climate Policy 14 (4), pp. 488–506. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2013.879514.

Ribot, J. C. (1995): The causal structure of vulnerability: Its application to climate impact analysis. In

GeoJournal 35 (2), pp. 119–122. DOI: 10.1007/BF00814058.

Romieu, E.; Welle, T.; Schneiderbauer, S.; Pelling, M.; Vinchon, C. (2010): Vulnerability assessment within

climate change and natural hazard contexts: revealing gaps and synergies through coastal applications. In

Sustain Sci 5 (2), pp. 159–170. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-010-0112-2.

Sarawak Forestry Corporation (2014): Talang-Satang National Park. Available online at

http://www.sarawakforestry.com/htm/snp-np-satang.html, checked on 9/29/2015.

Sarawak Government (2014): Study Reveals Huge Potential In Offshore Sand Extraction. Available online

at http://www.sarawak.gov.my/web/home/news_view/223/4605/, checked on 9/29/2015.

Sarawak Government (2015): http://www.sarawak.gov.my. Available online at

http://www.sarawak.gov.my/web/home/article_view/159/176/, checked on 9/29/2015.

46

Sarawak Marine Department (SMD) (2015): Sarawak Hourly High and Low Tide Tables 2014. Kuching.

Schwarz, A. M.; Béné, C.; Bennett, G.; Boso, D.; Hilly, Z.; Paul, C. et al. (2011): Vulnerability and resilience

of remote rural communities to shocks and global changes: Empirical analysis from Solomon Islands. In

Symposium on Social Theory and the Environment in the New World (dis)Order 21 (3), pp. 1128–1140.

DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.011.

Slik, J. W. F. (2004): El Niño Droughts and Their Effects on Tree Species Composition and Diversity in

Tropical Rain Forests. In Oecologia 141 (1), pp. 114–120. DOI: 10.2307/40005754.

Small, C.; Nicholls, R. J. (2003): A Global Analysis of Human Settlement in Coastal Zones. In Journal of

Coastal Research 19 (3), pp. 584–599. DOI: 10.2307/4299200.

The Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy & the Environment (2014): Climate Change Impacts on

Southeast Asia's Marine Biodiversity. Osaka.

The Borneo Post (2012): Talang Satang National Park a sanctuary for endangered turtles. Available online

at http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/03/20/talang-satang-national-park-a-sanctuary-for-endangered-

turtles/, checked on 9/29/2015.

The Borneo Post (2014): Malaysia lacks research on climate change. Available online at

http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/03/04/malaysia-lacks-research-on-climate-change-professor/,

checked on 9/29/2015.

The Economist (2012): Deforestation in Sarawak. Log tale. Available online at

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21565622-new-investigation-accuses-hsbc-

ignoring-its-own-sustainability-policies-log, checked on 9/29/2015.

The New York Times (2007): Neighbor Leaves Singapore Short of Sand. Available online at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/asia/16singapore.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, checked on

9/29/2015.

The Star (2015): Floods: Rising number of evacuees in Sarawak amid incessant rain. Available online at

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/01/19/Floods-Sarawak-more-evacuated/, checked on

9/29/2015.

Tol, R. S. J.; Yohe, G. W. (2007): The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive capacity: An empirical test. In

Global Environmental Change 17 (2), pp. 218–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.08.001.

UN Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) (2014): Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to access

resources from the Adaptation Fund. UN Adaptation Fund Board. Available online at http://adapation-

fund.org.

UNEP/COBSEA (2010): State of the Marine Environment Report for the East Asian Seas. UNEP/COBSEA,

2010. State of the Marine Environment Report for the East Asian Seas 2009. Ed. Chou, L.M., COBSEA

Secretariat, Bangkok. 156 p. ISBN: 978-92-807-3070-8.

Vittal Hegde, A.l; Radhakrishnan Reju, V. (2007): Development of Coastal Vulnerability Index for

Mangalore Coast, India. In Journal of Coastal Research 235, pp. 1106–1111. DOI: 10.2112/04-0259.1.

47

Appendixes

CIVAT rescaling Guide

Fig. 1: CIVAT rescaling Guide (MERF 2013, p. 89 Tab. 13)

48

Interview

According to the COBSEA report published, 98% percent of Malaysia’s population live in 100km proximity

of the Ocean. The governments states in their plans (9th and 10th report) that there will be major

conservation steps assuring sustainable management of the environment.

The erosion of the beaches in the area near small villages like Sematan and Lundu is apparent and has

now been highlighted by the results of my studies. Besides major wood lodging activities and the massive

growing palm oil industry there is no action taking place to protect these areas. The Malaysian plan

should have at least introduced long-term monitoring to the site to justify its self-imposed preventive

measure policy.

Well I think this is a common thing happening in those areas. The government will say that they have all

this major conservation and Malaysia has got EIA process to minimize the impact to the environment. You

find that when big major players come in, the business people. They want to setup plantations, so they can

easily just get a permit and just go ahead. There are restrictions on the different levels of government.

Federal government that handles the sea and marine environment, state government handles anything that

is on land: Land development. For what is happening on the sea there is no sort of policy, so there is a

conflict on different levels of government.

When you go down to more localized levels of government. What do you think there plan is? They want to

develop their economy. That’s quite a common problem. So what is really driving this is economic

development which any level of governments wants, that goes on. That’s we have seen in this area.

So what are actions which could take place here? For instance the UN adaptation fund established in the

Kyoto protocol provides money to treat such sites. But despite the fact the adaptation fund board of the

UN is constantly reviewing its prioritization pattern the process still struggles with translating it to the

subnational level (Persson, Remling 2014). Is that one of the main concerns while trying to introduce

sustainable management practices to rural sites?

Besides, economical interest is comparably low in the area, what could be a way to set incentives for the

conservation of the sites?

That is something they should consider. Once they end up with funds and partition it out. There is no proper

follow on, an accounting system which says what goes on. You need a long term monitor system which is

very important. For example when you designate a world heritage site then the concerning country has to

follow certain guidelines. If you are not managing the site carefully then UNESCO can just take it off the list.

You need mechanics like this to enforce, to make sure the necessary action is taken.

49

It’s the economic interest that drives all this. Even though the countries have all the EIA laws and regulations

but it is very easy for a business man to engage actions here.

What is or could be the major factor driving the erosion along Sarawak’s coastline? Coastal development

does not seem to be a major cause here. Is it a combination of different exposure factors going along

with climate change?

We have to see, if there is not much coastal development. We still have to move further upland and see

what is happening there. If you have development further up and that will easily change the intensity of

run-off and that can also create changes to the coastal morphology. But if it is just something that has

developed during the last 10 years. If the rate of erosion has increased over the last 10 years then obviously

that it is not something that is part of a natural process (e.g. tidal change). It definitely has to be attributed

to something that anthropogenic activity going on either further upland or the offshore dredging.

Sand dredging in the riverine systems of Sarawak, does it affect the sand deposition in the sampling site?

Once you clear the upland forest, it will change the amount of runoff coming down and that will cause

erosion. Depending how the land is managed and that will all eventually transmit right now. Dredging

definitely will have a major impact.

What would your recommendation for long-term monitoring of the sites be? Does the CIVAT approach

state a viable option for priority setting? Is it the recommended approach in this area (urbanized SEA /

rural in general)?

There is one thing that can sort of prevent this thing from happening. In order to make sure that it does not

happen all of the sudden is having a proper management approach? I think that is where integrated coastal

management is important. Because then you get to analyze impacts from uplands and in general within the

catchment area that will have an effect. Integrated coastal management if it is in place it will at least address

this kind of problems. Long term monitoring is just monitoring the impact. ICMF will help to reduce the

impacts. But still, long term monitoring is necessary to assess all these environmental management issues.

When we have a look at integrated management of coastal sites. The difference between urbanized and

rural areas to be more precise, the CIVAT does not really distinguish between those sites. For instance

my research has shown that the Siar Beach area is a major eroding site, but it is not on the high priority

list. What could be a possible adaptation here?

ICMF also has application in rural areas. Rural areas, the land or the sea is just open for big business

corporations. If you have an ICMF for the entire coastal area, rural areas will also benefit. For the ICM

approach what you are doing is getting the different levels of government into policy integration. The

federal government takes care of the sea and the state government will take care of the land. The impacts

from land coming to the see cannot be addressed. An ICM approach is important because you get this policy

harmonization across different levels right down to the local government. Rural area erosion is going very

50

fast and they come to realize that they will never get back how it used to be. Once you have this kind of

erosion, a lot of ecosystem services will just disappear. This will have a big impact on coastal rural

communities.

In the documentation you have played a part in (Sand Wars, 2013) it has been mentioned that there are

huge ships transporting sand to Singapore every day, even though it has been banned almost

everywhere. Do you think it is more viable to give recommendations and set limits to the sand mining

industry rather than preventing it at all?

First of all Singapore stand is that they purchase the sand and then the sand that comes in, whoever brings

the sand in has to prove that the sand is not illegally brought in. What actually happens is a commercial

thing, you can buy the sand and as long as people can show that the sand is not illegal - they can bring it in.

A lot of surrounding countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have banned such offshore activity. Sand that is

taken from the inland that is still not a problem. So also Singapore is getting sand from Vietnam, it is dredged

from the rivers. You see that all over Vietnam and it is happening every day, but the sand supply which

comes down from the river still continues. So some of that sand is being shipped to Singapore. Singapore

will just buy from wherever they can get sand, even from Myanmar river systems. Because these rivers

discharge a lot of sand.

The deep intervention of sediment transport offshore is followed by a hysteresis effect which is a strong

characteristic response of coastal beach systems. The initial erosion period is thus followed by a

persistence consecutive loss of sand resources of the concerning beaches, accumulating in the low-tide

platform (Borges et al. 2002). To what duration can such a hysteresis effect last? Is the erosion on the

sites a result of former or ongoing dredging activities?

If the amount of sand is dredged up and creates big cavities then this will continue for a long time. Sand

from the beaches will all be dragged down with time. The shore sand enrichment is just not enough, the

loss of beach sand in this dredge areas will be exceeding the shore enrichment. That nourishment comes

from rivers and longshore drift. Also I think when you do dredging on a scale like this close to the shore this

will also alter the hydromechanics patterns. This will affect the longshore drift and the amount of sand

which is transported across the shores.

Studies have shown that the shoreline response is extremely sensitive to the water depth of the dredging

location. Therefore placing the pit in the deepest water that is practical and minimize both the change in

depth due to dredging and the side slopes of the pit is recommended (Hüseyin 2004).

When you go deeper areas it calls for more expensive equipment and also it is more difficult. A common

technique is to do dredging over a wide area. Economic feasibility will limit the approach.